A recent Times editorial called for changes to legal education. It argued for “apprentice-style learning” and “more courses that train students” for roles as “advocates and counselors, negotiators and deal-shapers, and problem-solvers” instead of a curriculum where professors grill “students about appellate cases.”

TrackBack URL for this entry:$MTTrans>

Comments

Personally, having experienced and enjoyed both, I think there is a place for both. Socratic method is very good training for oral advocacy, but there is no substitute for more real-life training. So why make it an either/or proposition?